[oilfreeandhappy]

A specially modified V150 French TGV high-speed train, set a new world rail speed record at 574.8 km/h (357.1 mph) in France's Champagne region at Bezannes, eastern France, about 125 miles east of Paris on the yet to be opened new line between Paris and Strasbourg.

A promotional video of the run can be found at:

http://a456.g.akamai.net/7/456/34233/v2 ... yer_en.swf

[gg3]

I saw a video of this. Very very impressive. That train streaks by so quickly that you'll miss it if you blink.

Meanwhile, inside, a test group of passengers enjoy what would otherwise appear to be a perfectly normal trip. Except that if they look out the window, all they see is a blur going by.

Hot Damn!, I want that here. Coast to coast by rail in less than 9 hours.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'I') saw a video of this. Very very impressive. That train streaks by so quickly that you'll miss it if you blink.

Meanwhile, inside, a test group of passengers enjoy what would otherwise appear to be a perfectly normal trip. Except that if they look out the window, all they see is a blur going by.

Hot Damn!, I want that here. Coast to coast by rail in less than 9 hours.

[mekrob]

What do trains run on? Still coal? How exactly would this be better than air travel? Going faster would burn fuel up faster and if it became popular, you'd see even more travel in the world, burning even more fuel.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'W')hat do trains run on? Still coal? How exactly would this be better than air travel? Going faster would burn fuel up faster and if it became popular, you'd see even more travel in the world, burning even more fuel.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')In essence French trains are running on nuclear.

[Kingcoal]

The French have the right ideas; nukes, trains, good wine and food. Amtrak uses French trains on its Acela line from Washington to Boston. This new super fast train is a great idea. Does it use more fuel than a slower train? Probably, however it is probably orders of magnitude more efficient than a jet airliner. Air travel is the first casualty of PO because it is so fantastically inefficient. I believe that a fully loaded mid size jet airliner uses as much fuel as having each passenger making the trip in a car by themselves getting 24 miles per gallon.

As you can tell, I'm a big proponent for rail technology. The first rail travel was not via a steam engine. The original rail cars were pulled by horses. Omnibus operators laid the first steel rails to solve the problem of "peak horses." The demand for public transit had reached the point where there weren’t enough fresh horses to provide service throughout the day in a city like New York or London. A horse would typically become exhausted after only a couple of hours pulling an omnibus loaded with passengers through the muddy streets. The bus driver would have to return to the station every couple of hours for a fresh horse. With rail, one horse could go all day and still not be as tired as before after only one shift. Steel wheels on steel rail have very low rolling resistance. Trains are the future of long distance travel.

The US used to be one of the world leaders in train technology. Today, the US has no interest in trains and provides subsidies to industries like trucking, which allow unfair competition. In the US, rail companies must own and maintain the rails and property they sit on. They must pay taxes on that property. In contrast, the federal government builds and maintains the interstate highway system which can be used almost for free by truck companies.

[Poordogabone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou mean they just use batteries that are powered by the grid, which is run mostly with nuclear?

[Twilight]

It's nuclear-electric.

The French grid is 80% nuclear and so extensive, it actually exports to the rest of Europe. The other 20% has to be hydro / thermal because nuclear doesn't handle peak loads or system frequency regulation very well.

Best thing is, what you're looking at is not new. It's just the latest development of 1980s TGV in routine use, that's just a souped-up prototype of a future improved version. I do love the fact that it's got two decks. The mass addition is fairly small, the efficiency gain enormous when you're talking passenger miles.

There is also the Thalys and Eurostar, which are joint European projects built to very similar specs, again in routine service.

I've ridden that stuff before, you could buy a pass for entire chunks of the European rail network and the surcharge for the high-speed trains was the equivalent of $4 per trip, no booking required. Try taking an internal flight without pre-booking, and paying with cash at the desk. It's a bit more expensive these days, but for a few hundred Euros you've got your own taxi service for several countries or the whole continent for a month.

This stuff is going to be running a bit longer than the airlines. At some point people are going to be wondering whether there is any point bailing out airlines when the sector could be allowed to naturally contract.

[Laurasia]

I would absolutely LOVE it if we could have a decent train service here in the US. Poor Amtrak seems to be treated like a redheaded stepchild here though. I've been very disappointed by all the big cheeses talking about fuelling our cars with everything but the kitchen sink, and NOBODY says anything about curtailing car transport and bringing in a top-notch passenger rail service! I would even settle for a second-rate rail service if it covered a wide area.

Regards,

L.

[oilfreeandhappy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'W')hat do trains run on? Still coal? How exactly would this be better than air travel? Going faster would burn fuel up faster and if it became popular, you'd see even more travel in the world, burning even more fuel.

[Slowpoke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Poordogabone', 'A')ctually it runs the same way as the old trams in san Fransisco, it has a gizmo on top that makes contact with a line that is connected to the grid.

[KingM]

I just took Amtrak from Vermont to NYC and back. It's a terrible system compared to what they have in Europe but it still beat the hell out of traveling by car or plane. So much more legroom, comfort, quiet, etc., than on a plane and you just show up three minutes before departure and step on and off.

Oh, and a train is roughly 10X as fuel efficient as either plane or car, not to mention the imported energy/oil issues of the other two modes of transportation.

We're morons that we fly between Boston and DC instead of zipping along on our own TGV equivalent.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')In essence French trains are running on nuclear.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Liquid nitrogen or water could be taken on board of aircraft as propellant.
Compact reeactor core would be placed in some equivalent of combustion chamber (BTW to make such small reactor you will need weapons grade of uranium or plutonium, no way around that), system would be turned critical by bringing pieces of uranium close together or remooving control rods and once themperature reach 1000-2000*C cooling liquid would be pumped in, generating massive amounts of steam or air under high pressure and these would be allowed to expand over a nozzle creating thrust. After take off and gaining sufficient speed entire set up would begin to work as a ramjet and air would work as a colant. No more of pumping water or liquid nitrogen would be needed.
Thrust would be controlled by regulation of reactor core temperature with control rods.
Single fuel supply would last for several months. There would be no need to land for refueling.
The only problem with that design is, that I would not like if such things are flying over my head.
I do not see any stricto engineering problems, which would prevent such construction from working.

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '
')Anyway, another idea floating out there that I found:

[JPL]

For point of interest, for anyone that's never been on a French TGV train (or the Japanese equivalent, can't remember it's name) the experienced is best described as 'AWESOME'. It is like being on an aircraft, except about 10 ft above the ground. Worth doing, just for the experience.

Plus, it's all powered by fissile Uranium - whayhay!.

But... the fact that France is now one of the the most radioactive countries in Europe is, of course, an unfortunate by-product of the experiment (pleugggh...) Plus, they now tell us that the world is running out of Uranium. And also, we now have a load of ageing nuclear reactors to de-commission and no clear plan...

This is not good...

JPL

[JPL]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')In theory I could contemplate one.
Liquid nitrogen or water could be taken on board of aircraft as propellant.
Compact reeactor core would be placed in some equivalent of combustion chamber (BTW to make such small reactor you will need weapons grade of uranium or plutonium, no way around that), system would be turned critical by bringing pieces of uranium close together or remooving control rods and once themperature reach 1000-2000*C cooling liquid would be pumped in, generating massive amounts of steam or air under high pressure and these would be allowed to expand over a nozzle creating thrust. After take off and gaining sufficient speed entire set up would begin to work as a ramjet and air would work as a colant. No more of pumping water or liquid nitrogen would be needed.
Thrust would be controlled by regulation of reactor core temperature with control rods.
Single fuel supply would last for several months. There would be no need to land for refueling.
The only problem with that design is, that I would not like if such things are flying over my head.
I do not see any stricto engineering problems, which would prevent such construction from working.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')In theory I could contemplate one.
Liquid nitrogen or water could be taken on board of aircraft as propellant.
Compact reeactor core would be placed in some equivalent of combustion chamber (BTW to make such small reactor you will need weapons grade of uranium or plutonium, no way around that), system would be turned critical by bringing pieces of uranium close together or remooving control rods and once themperature reach 1000-2000*C cooling liquid would be pumped in, generating massive amounts of steam or air under high pressure and these would be allowed to expand over a nozzle creating thrust. After take off and gaining sufficient speed entire set up would begin to work as a ramjet and air would work as a colant. No more of pumping water or liquid nitrogen would be needed.
Thrust would be controlled by regulation of reactor core temperature with control rods.
Single fuel supply would last for several months. There would be no need to land for refueling.
The only problem with that design is, that I would not like if such things are flying over my head.
I do not see any stricto engineering problems, which would prevent such construction from working.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'Y')ou are far too dangerous if you know that much. Are you a mechanical/aero/nuclear engineer or just a geek with too much time?